Humanitarian intervention can be defined as an activity undertaken by a state, a group within a state, a group of states or an organization international organization which coercively interferes in the internal affairs of another State". (Vincent, 1974, p.3) Now, depending on your school of thought, this can be seen in a positive or negative light. For those who adhere to the theory of solidarity, the idea of ​​humanitarian intervention is perfectly viable since those who support the theory support the application of an international law that can combat, for example, the violation of human rights. On the other hand, pluralist theorists believe that the idea of ​​intervention, whether humanitarian or otherwise, is simply unacceptable. However, the liberal argument seems to best describe the concept of humanitarian intervention, arguing that it prevents or puts an end to the abuse of human rights. In critical response to liberal thinking on humanitarian intervention, some argue that intervention not only undermines the sovereignty of states but also destroys the conditions necessary for international order. (Ayoob, 2002, p.84) The effectiveness of humanitarian intervention is also questioned with several recent interventions considered failures. The use of the army constitutes an important part of the problem and determines the need for a change in the process of humanitarian intervention. PART 1 – LIBERAL ARGUMENT FOR HUMANARIAN INTERVENTION The liberal argument is undoubtedly the best for explaining the reasons behind and the benefits of humanitarian intervention. . The famous liberal thinker John Stuart Mill stated that there is a distinction between entering into wars of aggression for selfish reasons and going to war to prevent atrocities which… middle of paper… the state is the main argument against its existence. (Spalding, 2013, p.5) Realist international theorists are indeed non-interventionists as they believe that international society is a state of anarchy and as such the order of values ​​is far above morality. According to them, for there to be order, states must be sovereign and their sovereignty must be respected. The supreme power remains the State, and it is on this basis that universal human rights as well as the need for humanitarian intervention are rejected. Pluralists also add to the argument the claim that the plurality of international politics is an indication that it is impossible to agree on a universal standard of human rights. Non-interventionist arguments are based on the rejection of universal human rights and the importance of state sovereignty over morality. (Spalding, 2013, p.6)